Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company

• Decision Date: 14 January 1916
• Docket Number: 19,478 - (140)
• Citation: Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company, 155 N.W. 1046, 132 Minn. 51 (Minn. 1916)
• Parties: NANCY E. SMITH v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

155 N.W. 1046

132 Minn. 51

NANCY E. SMITH v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 19,478 - (140)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 14, 1916

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $50,000 for injury received while a passenger upon one of defendant's street cars. The answer alleged that for a valuable consideration plaintiff executed a release of all demands in any manner growing out of the claims set up in the complaint. The reply alleged that the release was procured through fraudulent representations by defendant's claim agent while he was negotiating the settlement. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., who denied defendant's motions to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a general verdict for $2,250, and answered in the negative the questions whether the release was procured by false representations or by undue influence and in the affirmative the question whether it was entered into under mutual mistake of fact on the part of both plaintiff and defendant. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Release -- avoidance on ground of mistake.

Plaintiff while a passenger on one of defendant's cars, was injured in a collision. About nine days after the accident plaintiff and defendant, believing the injuries to be slight, and relying on the statement of their physicians to that effect settled the claim. Plaintiff received a cash payment from defendant and signed a release. About six months afterward plaintiff brought this action for damages for severe injuries received by her in the accident. Defendant set up the release, which plaintiff sought to avoid, on the ground of mutual mistake of the parties and physicians in overlooking substantial injuries, of which the parties and the physicians had no knowledge at the time of the settlement. Held that, the law of the case as contained in the charge not having been challenged by the defendant by motion for a new trial, there is, under such charge, evidence sufficient to support the verdict for the plaintiff.

John F. Dahl, W. Y. Smiley and N. M. Thygeson, for appellant.

Mead & Bryngelson and Leslie S. Ogden, for respondent.

OPINION

SCHALLER, J.

Plaintiff, a woman of 54 years of age, who had never been ill except at childbirth, had given birth to, raised and cared for a family of seven children, all living, had alone done the work for the family during all her married life and at times had taken in boarders, was a good cook and housekeeper, cheerful, pleasant and vivacious, of sound health, mentally and physically, who had never had or needed the services of a doctor except at childbirth, was injured in a collision between two cars of the defendant, when she was thrown violently to the floor of the car in which she was a passenger and a large man was thrown across her head. From November 20, 1913, she became nervous, irritable, her memory failed, her eyesight was dim and she was subject to severe headaches and severe pains and trouble in her stomach, seemed to be continually rubbing or stroking her right eye and seemed to be altogether a different woman, physically and mentally, from what she had been before the accident. The symptoms above stated increased for a period of about two months when she had an apoplectic stroke. Immediately after the stroke, her right side was paralyzed and the sight of her right eye left her.

She has had two apoplectic...